The Broken Window Fallacy is very insightful when dealing with economics. I don’t want to rephrase something I just gave a link to, so just click it, then hit the back button. It’s okay, I’ll still be here.

Alright, done reading? I hope you read it, or already know what it is, or else you might get a bit confused.

My contention is that the Broken Window Fallacy applies not only to economics, but to emotion and ethical issues also. For example, people say that Sept. 11 brought everyone closer together, so it actually caused some good. But was that good merely diverted from elsewhere? There is no doubt in my mind as to the heroism of those firefighters on that day, but how many more lives could’ve been saved by those who had died on that day? They saved lives, but those were lives that shouldn’t have been in danger in the first place.

Those families were consoled by others, but what of the family members’ love that they’ve been deprived of? What I’m saying is that energy for emotions has been diverted from somewhere else, not created. We’re not looking at the hidden costs.

Another point I’m trying to make is that some people claim that even the bad people have actually caused some good. Worse crimes have led to better law enforcement. We wouldn’t need all that law enforcement if the crimes weren’t committed in the first place. It diverted good that could have been brought elsewhere. I could go on…

I’m not entirely sure if my thinking is right because emotions and ethics aren’t concrete, like money is. Moreover, I don’t think I’ve eloquently explained myself enough to convince anyone. However, it is something to chew on until I think about it some more and then write again.